Porwal Diya, Newton Giselle, Mansour Julia, Dive Lisa
Graduate School of Health, The University of Technology, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
The Centre for Digital Culture and Society, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
Hum Reprod. 2025 Jul 3. doi: 10.1093/humrep/deaf128.
What is known about stakeholders' experiences and perspectives with reproductive genetic carrier screening (RGCS) in gamete donation?
RGCS has impacted donors' autonomy, recipients' decision-making, healthcare professionals' confidence, and third-party service providers' management of the donor pool.
Growing acceptance of diverse family structures and advances in RGCS technology have driven demand for RGCS in gamete donation, yet its clinical, social, and ethical implications remain poorly understood.
STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A scoping review of four databases (Medline, Embase, CINAHL, and Scopus) with citation searching was conducted to identify original research, position statements, and conference abstracts published in English with an unrestricted date range.
PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Of the 470 studies identified, 427 were excluded during title and abstract screening and 14 during full-text review based on inclusion and exclusion criteria. For the 29 studies included, data were extracted in excel, and NVivo was used to code data and derive themes.
Four themes regarding stakeholders' experiences and perspectives with RGCS in gamete donation were derived: (i) RGCS presented new challenges regarding donor autonomy, informed consent, and result disclosure; (ii) recipients valued RGCS but decision-making was also shaped by cost, time constraints, and genetic literacy; (iii) healthcare professionals supported donors and recipients with RGCS, yet felt unskilled and inexperienced; and (iv) third-party service providers managed donor availability challenges from increased carrier detection through RGCS.
LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: This review was restricted to articles published in English. A range of terms were used to describe RGCS; thus, it is possible that not all relevant articles were identified in the search. Most included studies were conducted in the USA within a private medical system that permits compensation for gamete donors, which may shape the results and relevance to other countries with differing healthcare systems.
Our findings suggest that the growing demand for RGCS technology may impact donors' willingness to donate and the availability of donor gametes. Third-party service providers may refine their exclusion criteria to include donors with a positive carrier status in the donor pool or increase the involvement of recipients in donor selection. Healthcare professionals working in gamete donation require more guidance and training on RGCS. Further research is required to establish a more robust evidence base regarding how RGCS impacts stakeholders and to establish clearer guidelines regarding RGCS in gamete donation.
STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
n/a.
关于利益相关者在配子捐赠中进行生殖遗传携带者筛查(RGCS)的经历和观点,我们了解多少?
RGCS 已经影响了捐赠者的自主权、接受者的决策、医疗保健专业人员的信心以及第三方服务提供者对捐赠者库的管理。
对多样化家庭结构的接受度不断提高以及 RGCS 技术的进步推动了配子捐赠中对 RGCS 的需求,但其临床、社会和伦理影响仍知之甚少。
研究设计、规模、持续时间:对四个数据库(Medline、Embase、CINAHL 和 Scopus)进行了范围综述,并进行了引文搜索,以识别不限日期范围以英文发表的原始研究、立场声明和会议摘要。
参与者/材料、设置、方法:在确定的 470 项研究中,根据纳入和排除标准,在标题和摘要筛选期间排除了 427 项,在全文审查期间排除了 14 项。对于纳入的 29 项研究,数据在 excel 中提取,并使用 NVivo 对数据进行编码并得出主题。
得出了关于利益相关者在配子捐赠中进行 RGCS 的经历和观点的四个主题:(i)RGCS 在捐赠者自主权、知情同意和结果披露方面带来了新挑战;(ii)接受者重视 RGCS,但决策也受到成本、时间限制和遗传知识的影响;(iii)医疗保健专业人员通过 RGCS 为捐赠者和接受者提供支持,但感到缺乏技能和经验;(iv)第三方服务提供者通过 RGCS 检测到更多携带者,从而应对捐赠者可用性挑战。
局限性、谨慎原因:本综述仅限于以英文发表的文章。使用了一系列术语来描述 RGCS;因此,有可能在搜索中未识别出所有相关文章。大多数纳入研究是在美国的私立医疗系统中进行的,该系统允许对配子捐赠者进行补偿,这可能会影响结果以及与其他医疗系统不同的国家的相关性。
我们的研究结果表明,对 RGCS 技术需求的不断增加可能会影响捐赠者的捐赠意愿和捐赠配子的可用性。第三方服务提供者可能会完善其排除标准,将携带阳性的捐赠者纳入捐赠者库,或者增加接受者在捐赠者选择中的参与度。从事配子捐赠工作的医疗保健专业人员在 RGCS 方面需要更多的指导和培训。需要进一步研究以建立更强大的证据基础,说明 RGCS 如何影响利益相关者,并制定关于配子捐赠中 RGCS 的更明确指南。
研究资金/竞争利益:本研究未获得公共、商业或非营利部门的资助机构提供的任何特定资助。
无。